Thursday, 30 October 2014

Brazil’s decision
to buy the Swedish JAS-39E/F Gripen (or Gripen NG) has opened a tantalizing
possibility for India’s defence ministry (MoD), which is frustrated after 33
months of negotiations with French company, Dassault on the proposed purchase
of 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA).

On Monday, October 27, Swedish defence giant, Saab, which
builds the Gripen, announced that Brazil had signed a contract for 36 Gripen NG fighters for US $5.475
billion.

IHS Jane’s also
highlights the Indian Navy’s need for the Sea Gripen for two carriers that
Cochin Shipyard is building --- the 40,000 tonne INS Vikrant and a larger, yet unnamed, successor referred to as the
Future Indigenous Carrier.

So far, the
Indian Navy had planned to fly a naval version of the indigenous Light Combat
Aircraft (LCA) --- the Naval Tejas --- from these carriers. However, the Naval
Tejas, which the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) is developing, may not be
ready for service by 2018, when the Vikrant
will be commissioned.

The Sea
Gripen constitutes a new option as the Vikrant’s
light fighter. The navy already has a medium fighter, the MiG-29K, on order from
Russia.

Indian
analysts, like Manoj Joshi of Observer Research Foundation, say buying the Sea
Gripen would let the DRDO engage Saab as a design partner for the Naval Tejas
and Tejas Mark II, both advanced versions of the current Tejas Mark I.

In 2011,
then DRDO chief, Dr VK Saraswat, had approached Saab to collaborate in developing
the Tejas Mark II. In 2012, the DRDO and Saab held detailed discussions. In
January 2013, Saab was issued a Request for Proposal, which the DRDO examined
and discussed. Yet nothing came of it.

The DRDO’s
interest in Saab stems from the numerous technical parallels between the Tejas
and the Gripen. Both are light fighters in the 14-tonne class. Whilst
developing the Gripen NG, Saab changed the engine to the more powerful General
Electric F-414 turbofan, and added more fuel; which is exactly what the DRDO
proposes for the LCA Mark II. Fitting the bulkier, heavier F-414 into the Tejas
would require re-engineering of the fuselage; a problem that Saab has promised
to solve.

“The
greatest benefit to the Tejas Mark II could be from the Gripen’s superb
networking. Aerial combat is no longer about eye-catching aerobatics; it is
about data links; networking, and cockpit avionics, which is Saab’s strength,”
says Joshi.

The DRDO
was also hoping to learn from Saab’s maintenance philosophy, which has made the
Gripen the world’s most easy-to-maintain fighter. According to independent estimations,
the Gripen requires three-five man-hours of maintenance per flight hour. That
means, after an hour-long mission, 6-10 technicians require only 30 minutes to
put the fighter back in the air.

In
contrast, the Rafale is estimated to require 15 maintenance man-hours per
flight hour; while the F-35 Lightening II requires 30-35 man-hours.

According
to a Jane’s study, the operating cost of the Gripen is $4,700 per hour. The
Rafale is thrice as expensive, at $15,000 per hour.

“The Tejas
Mark I has not been designed with operational availability in mind. It is a
maintenance nightmare, with sub-systems inaccessible. The Tejas Mark II will need
Saab’s help in radically re-engineered these,” says a DRDO engineer.

Senior Saab
officials say, off the record, they are keen to partner India in developing the
Tejas Mark II. They say the Tejas Mark II, built cheaply in large numbers,
would eliminate the need for a heavy, costly, highly sophisticated fighter like
the Rafale. Saab sees major profit in co-developing the Tejas Mark II.

Brazil’s contract for 36 Gripen NGs comes on top of
Stockholm’s decision to buy 60 of these fighters for the Swedish Air Force.

In 2011, Switzerland too had selected the Gripen over the
Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. However, in an astonishing, nationwide
referendum on the proposed $3.5 billion purchase, the Swiss people voted to
spend the money instead on education, transport and pensions.

The current version of the Gripen NG, the Gripen D, is
currently in operational service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South
African and Royal Thai Air Forces, and also with the UK Empire Test Pilots’
School (ETPS).

Monday, 27 October 2014

By Ajai ShuklaBusiness Standard, 28th Oct 14On
Saturday, defence minister Arun Jaitley took his best procurement decision so
far, relating to building six state-of-the-art submarines for the navy under
Project 75I. He ruled that a ministry committee would identify Indian shipyards
that had the capability and capacity to build submarines, and the chosen ones
would bid, in partnership with a foreign vendor, on a winner-take-all basis.
Over the last decade, three committees have been set up for precisely this
purpose, but the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s antipathy for tough
choices stymied any decision. Now, by giving the committee just six-eight weeks
to submit its findings, Mr Jaitley gives us hope that he might be more
energetic than his predecessor in filling a yawning gap in our maritime power.

That
weakness is the dire shortfall of state-of-the-art submarines. Our powerful surface
fleet of some 130 vessels grows stronger every year as Indian shipyards build
bristling, multi-role destroyers, frigates and corvettes --- albeit slowly. The
Russian-built aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, commissioned last November,
flies the MiG-29K, one of the most capable carrier-borne fighters outside the
US Navy. In 2018 Cochin Shipyard will hand over INS Vikrant; and then start
building a larger, even more capable, indigenous carrier. These three carriers and
their battleship escorts will project power far out at sea. Thanks to India’s
peninsular geography and to forward air bases in the Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, the Indian Air Force (IAF) can support a fleet a long distance away. In
short, the surface navy is well poised to exercise “sea control” over chosen
parts of the northern Indian Ocean.

Yet we lack
“sea denial” capability, or the ability to deny enemy warships, submarines and
merchantmen the use of waters that we do not control. Submarines are sea denial
instruments, lurking underwater to detect and destroy enemy vessels that happen
along. In a war with China, for example, the surface fleet --- operating as
aircraft carrier battle groups --- might blockade Chinese oil supplies and
trade; while submarines patrol the Indonesian archipelago, denying Chinese warships
entry into the Indian Ocean. Other submarines might lurk outside Pakistani
harbours, bottling up warships inside.

To build this
crucial capability, the government signed off in 1999 on a plan to build 24 conventional
submarines over the next 30 years. Although half that period elapsed this year,
not a single submarine has joined the fleet. Six Scorpene submarines, built in
Mumbai by Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL), will start being commissioned only in 2016.
Even so, they will be without air independent propulsion (AIP) and land attack
missiles until those capabilities are retrofitted. Meanwhile, the navy makes do
with nine ageing, Russian, Kilo-class; and four German HDW submarines.

The UPA’s procrastination
with Project 75I did not stem from a profusion of choices. There is agreement
that just two Indian shipyards can build modern submarines: the public sector
MDL, because of the experience of building the Scorpene; and private sector
engineering giant, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), which has worked on India’s
nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) programme for two decades. With MDL
busy with the Scorpenes, the navy had been urging the ministry to let L&T bid
for Project 75I, in partnership with a foreign vendor that met the technical
and financial requirements. Yet the ministry’s department of defence production
(the DDP directly oversees MDL, a major conflict of interest) assiduously
undermined L&T’s chances. The DDP illogically insisted that L&T’s
Hazira shipyard, which had built large sections of the bigger and far more technologically
challenging SSBN, INS Arihant, was inadequate for building a smaller
conventional submarine. Until Mr Jaitley intervened, Project 75I was going to
be built as follows: two submarines abroad, and four by MDL.

Meanwhile, L&T
has built an Rs 4,500 crore shipyard-cum-port at Katupalli, near Ennore, Tamil
Nadu, with sufficient draft and capacity to build any size of submarine. It has
also established a submarine design centre in Chennai and a virtual reality
centre in Mumbai. For good measure, it created a Rs 500 crore fabrication unit
at Talegaon, near Pune; and a Rs 350 crore unit at Coimbatore for engineering
missile parts. Locating Katupalli shipyard on the east coast was a smart move
by L&T, since that distributes the risk of disruption to production.

With the
defence ministry looking to identify an Indian shipyard, it must also think
hard about the foreign technology partner. Traditionally, the choice has been
between “eastern bloc” and “western bloc” weaponry, i.e. Russian or European.
Today, however, other potential choices present themselves --- notably the
Japanese Soryu-class submarines that many experts consider the world’s finest
conventional submarine. There remain questions about its high cost; and Tokyo’s
willingness to transfer Soryu-class production and technology to India. Even
so, New Delhi must consider the Soryu’s technological edge, the growing
strategic embrace with Tokyo, and the likelihood that prices could be lowered
if Japan’s own production (five planned) were boosted by simultaneous orders
from India (six or more) and Australia’s planned purchase of up to twelve.

Finally, if
Mr Jaitley does take the strategic decision to establish one private sector
submarine line on the east coast (L&T), in addition to a public sector line
on the west coast (MDL), it must keep the Scorpene submarine line rolling even
after MDL delivers the sixth and final vessel in 2019-20. More Scorpenes are
only to be welcomed; and New Delhi could negotiate tough with DCNS, insisting
on enhanced technology transfer and a greater share of production as a
precondition for ordering 4-6 more.

Finally, in
developing two submarines lines, the defence ministry must keep the future in
mind. The 30-year submarine plan stipulates that the manufacture of 12
submarines (Project 75 and 75I) must lead on to indigenous production, with 12 vessels
to follow that have been designed and built in India.

Sunday, 26 October 2014

MoD to choose yards for building submarines;Israeli
Spike anti-tank missile chosen over US Javelin

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 26th Oct 14

The
ministry of defence (MoD) on Saturday took a major step to address India’s
critical submarine shortage,. A committee has been set up to evaluate which
Indian defence shipyards can build six high-tech, conventional submarines under
Project 75I at an estimated cost of Rs 50,000 crore.

The
government has also cleared the procurement of the Spike anti-tank missile from
Israel, effectively rejecting the US proposal to co-manufacture the Javelin
missile and then co-develop a next-generation version of the Javelin for the US
and Indian militaries. The government has also cleared several smaller projects
whose worth, according to ministry officials, totals Rs 80,000 crore. The
details of these smaller approvals, though, are not immediately available.

To identify
shipyards that will bid for the tender, the high-level committee, under
Secretary (Defence Production) G Mohan Kumar, has been given six-eight weeks to
screen five public sector and two private shipyards --- Mazagon Dock Ltd,
Mumbai (MDL), which is currently building six Scorpene submarines under Project
75; Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata; Hindustan Shipyard Ltd,
Visakhapatnam (HSL); Goa Shipyard Ltd; Cochin Shipyard Ltd; Larsen & Toubro
(L&T) and Pipavav Shipyard.

Highly
credible MoD sources say the shortlisted shipyards will be invited to submit
bids, in partnership with a foreign shipyard that meets the navy’s specifications
for the submarines. These include air-independent propulsion; the capability to
fire land attack cruise missiles; and advanced stealth features that make them
hard to detect.

Project 75I
stems from a “30-Year Submarine Construction Plan”, approved by the cabinet in
1999, for constructing 24 conventional submarines in India. Two separate
construction lines were to build six submarines each, one using western
technology; and the other with Russian know-how. Based on this experience,
Indian designers would build the next 12 submarines.

So far,
only six submarines are being built under Project 75 --- the Scorpenes at MDL.

Further
production has remained stalled, with three committees having been constituted by
the defence ministry to identify Indian shipyards that can build Project 75I.
In 2003, a committee, under a defence joint secretary, cleared L&T and MDL.
Yet, in 2008, a similar committee ruled out L&T.

So incensed
was the private engineering giant, which is playing a leading role in building
India’s nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, that the chairman, AM Naik, met then
prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to protest. That led to the setting up of a
third high-level committee, headed by the National Manufacturing
Competitiveness Council chief, V Krishnamurthy, which again cleared L&T and
MDL.

Meanwhile, to
ensure early delivery, the Indian Navy has pushed for building two submarines
abroad, while the domestic manufacturer absorbed technology and cranked up
production. Now, in keeping with the Modi government’s “Make in India” policy, and
in accordance with the 1999 plan, it has been decided that all six vessels will
be built in India.

Gone too is
the impractical United Progressive Alliance (UPA) plan to divide production
between two public sector defence shipyards (MDL and HSL) --- a device proposed
by then defence minister, AK Antony, to keep HSL in business. Instead, a single
shipyard will build all six submarines.

The big
potential gainer from today’s decision is L&T, which is back in contention
for winning, single-handedly, Indian warship-building’s largest-ever order.

Speaking to
Business Standard today, MV Kotwal, L&T’s defence business chief, said:
“L&T would welcome any decision to evaluate Indian shipyards for both
capacity and capability in building submarines. We have both the infrastructure
and the experience in our Hazira shipyard, and also in our new Katupalli shipyard
(at Ennore, Tamil Nadu). Most importantly, we have established a
state-of-the-art submarine design centre in Chennai and a virtual reality
centre in Mumbai, both essential for Project 75I.”

Separately,
Business Standard learns the MoD has cleared the Rs 2,000 crore procurement of two
midget submarines, used for special operations like landing commandoes on enemy
shores. It is likely that HSL Visakhapatnam, the defence ministry’s newest
shipyard, will build these in partnership with a foreign vendor.

In another
major decision on Saturday that is loaded with politics, the MoD has cleared
the procurement of the Israeli Spike anti-tank missile for the army’s infantry
battalions to destroy enemy tanks. MoD sources say the Rs 3,200 crore contract
is for about 300 launchers and more than 8,000 missiles. Production facilities
will be established in Bharat Dynamics Ltd, Hyderabad.

This
constitutes a flat rejection of the US proposal to co-manufacture the Javelin anti-tank
missile in India and, unprecedentedly, co-develop with the Defence R&D
Organisation (DRDO) a next-generation version of the Javelin. That proposal was
made under the Defence Trade & Technology Initiative, a high-level defence
channel established to boost defence ties between New Delhi and Washington With
the US lobbying New Delhi at multiple levels, including during Prime Minister
Narendra Modi’s recent visit, this is an unmistakeable snub for Washington.

Amongst
other procurements cleared are: 363 new BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles from
Ordnance Factory, Medak, for the army for Rs 1,800 crore; 761 radio relay
containers for army communications for Rs 662 crore; 1,768 railway wagons for
Rs 740 crore for quickly moving army units over long distances; and 12
additional Dornier aircraft for the navy, which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)
will build for Rs 1,850 crore.

Speaking at
the MoD’s apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) on Saturday, where the
procurement decisions were made, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said “National
security is a paramount concern for the government. All hurdles and bottlenecks
in the procurement process should be addressed expeditiously so that the pace
of acquisitions is not stymied.”

Friday, 24 October 2014

Next week, Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Nashik will, complete the first ever overhaul of a Sukhoi-30MKI
fighter. HAL test pilots will now test-fly the aircraft to ensure that it has
emerged from the overhaul as good as new. Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air
Chief Marshal Arup Raha, has been invited to Nashik next month to accept the overhauled
fighter back into his combat fleet.

HAL’s new overhaul
facility will save the IAF hundreds of crore rupees, while giving leases of
life to its Su-30MKIs. Not even Russia overhauls this fighter, a process that involves
stripping it to its bare bones, checking every system and sub-system, replacing
numerous components, and then reassembling the fighter anew.

A Su-30MKI
is overhauled after flying 1,500 hours or 14 years, whichever is first. Over
its total service life of 6,000 flying hours or 30-40 years, each fighter
undergoes three overhauls. Eventually the IAF’s fleet of 272 Su-30MKIs will undergo
816 overhauls --- three per fighter.

HAL
officials say overhauling in India costs far less than what “original equipment
manufacturers”, or OEMs, charge --- typically 35-40 per cent of the cost of a
brand new fighter.

“OEMs usually
price new fighters reasonably, but make their money by charging heavily for
repair and overhaul. Establishing overhaul capability in India defeats this
pricing strategy,” says Wing Commander Neelu Khatri, a former IAF logistics specialist.

HAL Nashik
also stands to benefit from business from other air forces that operate the
Su-30. Says a MoD official; “Nashik is the world’s only overhaul facility for
the Su-30MKI. Potentially, it could get overhaul orders from countries like
Vietnam, Malaysia, Algeria, etc, which fly variants of the Su-30”.

Through
years of building the Su-30MKI, HAL Nashik has gradually mastered the expertise
that makes it one of the world’s most feared fighters. Says the chief of HAL’s
Nashik facility, S Subrahmanyan: “More 51 per cent of the Su-30MKI by value is
currently made in India, a little more than the 49 per cent agreed with Russia
in the contract signed in 2000 to build 140 fighters in India.

Of the
43,000 components that go into a Su-30MKI, 31,500 components --- or 73 per cent
--- are now being built in India.

Further
indigenisation is blocked since the Indo-Russian contract mandates that all raw
materials that goes into the Su-30MKI --- including 5,800 titanium blocks and
forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc --- must be sourced from Russia. The
contract also stipulates that another 7,146 items like nuts, bolts, screws and
rivets must be sourced from Russia.

HAL has
also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI’s giant AL-31FP engines, which are
built in Koraput, Odisha. 53 per cent of the engine by cost has been
indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites
and special alloys --- proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even
so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine’s components in India.

Given HAL,
Nashik’s growing expertise, it is surprising that the overhaul facility at
Nashik has taken 14 years to overhaul its first fighter. This is because the
initial contract, signed in 2000 for building 140 fighters in India, did not
include provisions for overhaul --- a mistake, say contract lawyers.

The delay
was compounded because Russia itself has no Su-30 overhaul facility (the
Russian Air Force did not buy the fighter until well after India). Only in 2008
did New Delhi and Moscow sign an overhaul contract. Until last year, aircraft
parts and systems were going to Russia for overhaul.

In 2010,
the first IAF Su-30MKI fighters, which had joined the fleet in 2000, were due
for overhaul, in accordance with the original schedule, which was 1,500 flying
hours or 10 years. Since the fighters had flown far less than 1,500 hours,
Sukhoi was approached to extend the time period between overhaul. After numerous
inspections and “accelerated aging tests”, Sukhoi revised the overhaul schedule
to 1,500 flying hours or 14 years, whichever comes first.

“The MoD has sanctioned an overhaul capacity of 15 fighters
per year; next year we will overhaul 10-12 fighters and then stabilize at 15
fighters annually. We have already approached the MoD to step up capacity to 30
fighters per year, which will cater for our requirements into the 2030s” says
Subrahmanyan.

Of the thirty Su-30MKIs that will be overhauled each year,
HAL will do 20, while an IAF base repair depot will overhaul the other 10.